Blog by reformed leftist "Paul Hue", and his friends, including some UnReformed Leftists; the headlines reflect these competing views.
Six: I think that the sentiment is well stated and logical, and non-racist. However, I still conclude that these illigal immigrants will adapt into Americans, and a large fraction will adopt a preference for free markets. I believe that the preference for socialism sweeping latin America comes from desperation; the immigrants from there into the US will see that free markets permit hard work and smart choices to transform into wealth and security, though the recent immigrants may tend to vote for impossible fantasies, like "universal health care" and "minimum wages". I agree that it is galling that huge numbers of people enter illegally, demand citizenship and entitlements. Just you try to do the same either in Canada or Mexico. Canadian leftists are vacuously righteous, as they have no border problem, whereas Mexican leftists are double-talking, since they do not object to the harsh policies of their country with respect to massive illegal immigration on their own southern border.Despite this outrageous conduct, I think that the illegal immigrants comprise a population that exceeds the US national average in positive contributions to the economy. For this selfish reason I support rolling over for their preposterous demands. Since the Mexican govt leaders want the US govt leaders to do this, I hope that Bush uses this to win concessions for freeing Mexico's marketplace. A wealthier Mexico will mean less US immigration, and more Mexicans purchasing US goods and services; if Mexico instead goes the way of Venezuala, surely immigration will increase.That raises the question: do Americans benefit more from a prosperous Mexico with citizens who purchase American products, or from an economically retarded Mexico which effectively expels its most industrious citizens to the US? I am not sure. But I have confidence that Mexican immigrants will experiance the benefits of capitalism soon enough to support it here before they get a chance to ruin the US economy with votes for socialism.
I have never understood the left's support for "reconquista". When Mexico possessed the US Southwest, it was a nation similar to the US in all ways that the left opposes: white Europeans ruled over non-white American Indians and African slaves. Why do today's leftists care that this inter-honkey rivalry resulted in the honkies of the US winning that area over the honkies of Mexico? This question is an extention of the question: when did "spanish" come to indicate "non-white" or "minority"? This is very curious.It is especially curious since a large net of Mexicans apparently prefer how the US honkies set up their country better than how the Mexican honkies set up theirs. It make no sense to me, that somebody destitute in Mexico would think that he has better opportunities in California due to California having had for some period of history been ruled by Mexico's slave-owning, Indian-killing honkies, rather than due to California's US government being better than Mexico's. Do such people think that California would have better opportunities for Mexicans if Mexico ran it? Surely only the devoted leftist activists believe such an insane concept; surely a majority of people who made that awesome trip from Mexico would not vote to turn California and Texas over to the government that was so disfunctional that it caused them to flee in the first place! No?
Post a Comment